Trolley Folly

On the subject of fixing mistakes, earlier today the Australian Press Council released its judgement on a story that sparked a brawl between The West Australian newspaper and that state's Government.

trolley1

How would you feel if this was your grandmother, Jim?

First there were no beds. Now WA's health system has endured its darkest hour with the revelation that a lack of trolleys forced a frail, elderly woman to spend several hours lying across three chairs in one of our top hospitals. And Health Minister McGinty says things are improving.

— The West Australian, How would you feel if this was your grandmother, Jim?, 24th January, 2007

The West Australian has been gunning for Health Minister Jim McGinty for years.

And it used this photo to bolster its case that he'd let a key hospital run out of beds and trolleys.

trolley2

Reporter Cathy O'Leary claimed the woman forced to sprawl across the chairs was a frail and elderly grandmother and that she was suffering from a neurological condition.

And her news story was followed up with a furious editorial.

trolley3

A public hospital's wretched inadequacy could not be shown more graphically or pitifully. No, the picture we publish on the front page today is not from Zimbabwe or some other Third-world hellhole dictatorship. It was taken in Perth...This is a picture of profound shame and disgrace. But the picture can't lie ...

Gayle Sargent: I was shocked and embarrassed to see that my photo had been taken and published without my permission. I am 46-years-old. I am not a grandmother. Nor am I frail or elderly or suffering a neurological illness.

— Channel 7, Perth News, 24th January, 2007

Gayle Sargent defended her care and went on to insist that she hadn't been "forced" to lie on the chairs at all.

Instead of publishing that letter, The West Australian offered only this.*

trolley4

No excuse for patients lying on seats: AMA

The hospital's public relations department yesterday issued a letter to The West Australian signed by the woman in which she said her care was not compromised.

— The West Australian, No excuse for patients lying on seats: AMA, 25th January, 2007

Debate over the story and The West Australian's refusal to correct or retract it, simply worsened already bad relations between the paper and the Carpenter government.

The Government took its complaint to the Australian Press Council.

And today the Council published its damning assessment of the paper's conduct.

trolley5

...the newspaper's failure to take reasonable steps to check the accuracy of what was reported, or seek balancing comment, and instead to rely on an unsourced photograph, were breaches of the Press Council's principles. This was made worse by the lack of proper amends for publishing what turned out to be inaccurate information. Ultimately the newspaper's actions compromised its legitimate attempt to air a matter of obvious public concern.

But still fighting the requirement to print a correction nine months on, The West Australian is appealing against the finding.

trolley6

The West Australian stands firmly behind its report about the desperate plight of a patient in WA's sub-standard, crumbling health system. That was the focus of the article. The fact remains unchallenged that there was no bed available for a patient in what is supposedly one of WA's top hospitals, so she was placed on a trolley, then moved to a chair when the trolley was needed by another patient...

— Letter from Paul Armstrong (Editor of The West Australian) to Media Watch

We'll keep you posted on whether the West can continue to hold out against any forced correction.

That's it from us tonight. Don't forget to visit our website for transcripts and video downloads.

Thanks for watching and I'll see you next week.

* Media watch notes a complaint from The West Australian regarding part of this story that says 'Instead of publishing that letter, The West Australian offered only this' and was followed by an excerpt from an article published on 25 January, 2007.

That excerpt did not include two other direct quotes from the letter which were also published. Media Watch accepts this may have misled viewers. Media Watch was trying to point out that the newspaper did not publish the patient's letter in full, which was also a matter of concern for the Press Council.